9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...

Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.

9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...

Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.

Great - that sounds interesting! I will start to save money for that display

9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...

Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.

Great - that sounds interesting! I will start to save money for that display

The new 70D is, in some sense, a pseudo 40MP sensor so 75+MP for FF seems possible.

I do slightly fear that the fact they go sooo high with the MP count maybe means they can't match the good DR of all the other modern sensors and are going for crazy MP count instead? Or maybe it's just the only way to bring back the 1DXs "s" line again and the big price tag. I imagine it will have a modest fps and such and be fairly specialized. Maybe it frees up more room for a 5D4 or such to be an amazing 38MP cam too.

9 years ago I got an 8 megapixel DSLR and was amazed at how big the images were and the detail involved. 8 was a big thing! Now I have 18 megapixels.... it's about time for ALL DSLR's to take a jump up.... 40 is the new 20... but 75!, that sounds like an attack on medium format.

That's true and just today I am amazed by the 10 MPix of the 40D ... just a good beamer/monitor with at least 5 or 6 MPix is still missing/not available for mortals! What a mismatch between cameras and output devices ...

Just wait a bit. Apple have a retina 27" monitor in the pipeline - 5120x2880 resolution, or 14.7MP. If you want to avoid upscaling, and crop the top and bottom off your 3:2 photo to fill the 16:9 display, you'll need a minimum of a 17.5MP image to start with. To be fair, 75MP isn't needed for that.

I can't wait for such retina displays. I hope NEC PA series makes one too since it needs to also be wide gamut and have a nice 14bit 3D LUT too.

It seems to me that we're overlooking one possibility. Most of us probably use the highest possible resolution that our camera is capable of taking. With my 5D3 I rarely shoot sRAW but instead go for the full 21.1 megapixels. This makes the most sense to me since I often crop my shots and print fairly large. At this resolution I've rarely been disappointed in the ultimate print.

However, if the 5D3 were capable of 75 megapixels I would soon start choosing my resolution based on my anticipated use for the photo. I'd probably shoot mostly in the 30-40 megapixel range and only rarely go up to 75 megapixels.

Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.

Thus, having 75 megapixels available would provide another variable that I could control, just as I control WB, f-stop and shutter speed.

Possibly. Computational capacity increases exponentially however, including camera pixels, so 70MP seems only natural. Are we suddenly now at a point where we want to change number of pixels on a per-shot basis? Why, other than to optimize disk usage that will be twice as cheap in a year?

Although disk storage is certainly becoming quite inexpensive, there are also bandwidth issues to be considered. Having a camera with 75+ megapixels would permit me to use 40 megapixels now but switch up to 75 when PC technology makes that quick and cheap.

Although disk storage is certainly becoming quite inexpensive, there are also bandwidth issues to be considered. Having a camera with 75+ megapixels would permit me to use 40 megapixels now but switch up to 75 when PC technology makes that quick and cheap.

Bandwidth is going up a lot faster than pixel count.

Where I work, we are wired end-to end with 1Gbit or faster links. 10GigEthernet is starting to come to the desktop.... quite a change from when I first started connecting computers with Thickwire and vampire taps... USB has jumped from 1.5Mbps to 4.0Gbps, firewire at 400Mbps has become Thunderbolt at 10Gbps... IO speed has gone up by three orders of magnitude while sensor sizes (if it really is 75Mpixels) has gone up by one order of magnitude....

Disk storage is cheap, but software like NR or layered actions requires a lot of horsepower in a computer. I upgraded to the latest I7 and a Samsung 512GB 840 Pro, and it finally handles the rendering of my old D800 images with all the NR I had to apply. I'd pass on a 75GB camera, but I can see some uses for one like landscape.

Canon lenses can handle the resolution, but it requires a lot of care by the photographer to prevent motion blur. You will need a much higher shutter speed for non-IS lenses, or a very stable tripod.